Re:How Coca-Cola Undermines Plastic Recycling Efforts
by danharaj on Sunday October 20, 2019 @11:45AM
(#21304832)
> Framing it in the light of "They are blocking [all] recycling efforts" is dishonest.
But that's not the title. That's a much stronger statement than the article. If you choose such creative ways to interpret people's words then you can make anyone sound dishonest or stupid.
Re:How Coca-Cola Undermines Plastic Recycling Efforts
by asdfasgasdgasdg on Sunday October 20, 2019 @12:04PM
(#21304968)
I can't speak for anyone else, but I also read the title as suggesting that Coca-Cola was generically opposed to plastic recycling. That's not what the title means formally, but that's what I took away. I suspect this was intentional.
This is similar to how some people think it's clever to answer "yes" when asked an "X or Y" question where both X and Y are true. Technically, it's a correct answer, but it is not a response designed to engender a correct understanding of the situation in the listener's mind. I think the title would be just as punchy and less likely to mislead if it were "How Coca-Cola Undermines Bottle Deposit Efforts".
Framing it in the light of "They are blocking [all] recycling efforts" is dishonest.
In the sense of I read the title, thought, why the fuck is coca-cola blocking recycling efforts, why don't they like recycling? clicked, read, and was disappointed because I felt mislead and click bated to read an article i wouldn't have bothered to read if it was titled more honestly like, "[How] Coca-Cola uses it's charitable efforts in recycling nonprofits to block bottle deposit bills"
So, to answer your question, it's dishonest and misleading because its an over-generalized and over-abstracted summary of the subject matter that gains clicks that a more on point title would not gain.